Does the RNC Have a Legal Obligation to Nominate a Winning Fall Candidate?

[Silhouette]

Here's how the pre-primary democrat discussions were going...

Why don't Democrats register as Republicans and vote for Trump in the primary so Clinton can win the presidency in the general election?
The reasoning behind is if Trump gets the nomination Clinton would win in a landslide. Why don't Democrats register as Republicans and vote for Trump in the primary so Clinton can win the presidency in the general election? - Quora

Because so many republicans don't want Trump to be president, wouldn't it be smart for the democrats to back him until he clinches the nomination? - Quora

Should New Hampshire Democrats cross over and vote en masse in the open primaries for Donald Trump so he can face Hillary Clinton in the general election? - Quora

It wouldn't surprise me if the George Soros funded "Trump protestors" (that help pro-Trump turnout by their audacious liberalism) went straight from their protest to cast a vote for Trump in the respective states one by one. I'd bet the house on that a significant number of them are doing just that. So the true support for Donald Trump is completely in question and has been tampered with... None of those folks have any intentions of voting Trump in the Fall. And so, we see that reflected in Trump consistently losing to Hillary by double digits, even as his "popular support soars!"...


I'm just wondering about the rules of the RNC. If faced with two candidates. (Canadians don't count)

Candidate 1. Consistently polls losing to Hillary in the Fall. Has made numerous disparaging remarks about women and Hispanics. Supports men using women's bathrooms. Has encouraged violence at his rallies and division among Americans. Zero experience running a large body of people or budgets for large bodies of people and no experience with foreign policy. But more popular with primary voters because of the split anti-vote..

Candidate 2. Consistently polls winning against Hillary in the Fall. Supports women and at least talks respectfully about Hispanics. Doesn't support men using women's bathrooms. Always encourages decorum. Has decades of experience running a large body of people, their budgets and foreign policies. But less popular with primary voters because of the split anti-vote.

Which candidate is the RNC legally bound to nominate according to their rules?

The RNC might say: "this candidate has offended so much of the base (women/Hispanics) that it would be impossible for him to carry our party to a win this Fall." To nominate him would be one and the same as a June concession speech by the GOP. We might not bother at all with the expense of the Fall election. Just nominate Trump and concede the election all at the same RNC convention. Saves time. Saves money.

Trump may have the majority of the votes from the primaries, but he will have the minority of votes in the general.

Kasich is the exact opposite. Which one would you nominate if you wanted to win in the Fall?

 

[DarkFury]

The one with the most delegates.

 

[Silhouette]

The one with the most delegates.

Even if that guarantees a loss in the Fall.

OK, gotcha. You a democrat by any chance? Or do you just relish the idea of losing to Hillary?

 

[DarkFury]

The one with the most delegates.

Even if that guarantees a loss in the Fall.

OK, gotcha. You a democrat by any chance?

Nope, a TRUMP supporter.

 

[whitehall]

If you are wondering about rules you might think about the potential of the democrat party nominating a candidate who is accused of multiple felonies.

 

[rightwinger]

Looks like they don't

 

[DGS49]

There is nothing "legal" about it. The Republican party is not a government body. They have to adhere to their own rules, which can be changed (somewhat).

Polls in late April have very little predictive value of what voters are going to be doing in November. HRC could well be indicted by Summer. There will be debates. VP nominees will be selected. Nobody has actually attacked HRC for her real shortcomings, failures, and mendacity.

And historically, the more people see of Hillary, the less they like her.

Even if the RNC agreed with your views, it would be incredibly stupid to base a selection on how the polls look in the Spring. Trump has already been much more successful than any sane person would have predicted a year ago.

 

[whitehall]

"A candidate who polls losing"? What legal status do polls have? Democrats have proved time and time again that polls can be rigged in a lot of ways. They even had John Kerry winning the election based on skewed (and fraudulent?) exit polls in order to suppress the republican turnout. You almost gotta laugh that the left needs to invent legal issues that don't exist while their candidate is liable to be indicted before the election.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

The one with the most delegates.

The one with 1237 and if it falls short of that then the one the Delegates want...

 

[NightFox]

Which candidate is the RNC legally bound to nominate according to their rules?

As far as I know, it's none of the above, the RNC nominating process doesn't account for the results of hypothetical match-ups with candidates from other parties. Beyond that the RNC isn't "legally bound" to nominate anybody although I would think that they'd be subject to civil action if they failed to follow their own rules (which are changeable) during the nomination process.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Does the RNC Have a Legal Obligation to Nominate a Winning Fall Candidate?" The standard, little buddies, is what the Rules and Regulation committees say about it, not the law.

 

[Silhouette]

Nope, a TRUMP supporter.

You mean "a supporter of a GOP loss in the Fall". The two are synonymous. Didn't you realize that?

 

[Silhouette]

As far as I know, it's none of the above, the RNC nominating process doesn't account for the results of hypothetical match-ups with candidates from other parties. Beyond that the RNC isn't "legally bound" to nominate anybody although I would think that they'd be subject to civil action if they failed to follow their own rules (which are changeable) during the nomination process.

"Hypothetical match-ups". You mean polling, right? The stuff all strategists rely on to make a winning game plan.. "Ignore the facts, just wing it." That's your "GOP win strategy"?

The one with the most delegates.

The one with 1237 and if it falls short of that then the one the Delegates want...

Regardless if that person is projected to lose against Hillary in the Fall, eh? Are you a democrat? Or do you just relish the idea of the GOP losing to Hillary this Fall?

 

[Rozman]

The one with the most delegates.

The one with 1237 and if it falls short of that then the one the Delegates want...

I agree...The candidate needs the 1237 otherwise what is the point of all the primaries.
I don't agree with the notion that if Trump is 100-200 shy that the nomination should just be given to
him because he got close enough.

If Trumps team can negotiate with delegates before the convention then that's it.
But he needs the 1237.

Now if the rules are changed for this convention well that's something else I guess.
But all I have been hearing for months is that the candidate needs the 1237.
And there better be an explanation if that turns out not to be true.

 

[BULLDOG]

A political party is more like a private club than a government entity. They can do pretty much what they want to do.

 

[dannyboys]

The one with the most delegates.

The one with 1237 and if it falls short of that then the one the Delegates want...

One small fact many are totally missing:
As Trump gets closer and closer to the Cal. primary if it's obvious by then he must have 'X' number of Cal. delegates to reach 1237 the REPs in Cal are going to turn out in historic numbers to make sure Trump gets across the finishing line.
Same goes with each of the next primaries.
Already Trump has had unbelievably historic REP support no other REP candidate in US history has. The REPs in the upcoming states will follow suit.
Take that to the bank all you fucking LIB pussies.
Trump will eat Hillary's lunch on the most watched televised debates in world history.
Assuming the FBI hasn't recommended a list of felony charges be brought against her. It will matter not whether BONOB's 'fisting buddy' Lynch goes ahead with them or not.
Watch the LIB MSM come running to her aid: "She's innocent until proven guilty" refrain. Watch Trump's attack ads:
"Yes she's innocent until proven guilty. If she is found not guilty she can run for fucking dog catcher."

 

[Silhouette]

Now if the rules are changed for this convention well that's something else I guess.
But all I have been hearing for months is that the candidate needs the 1237.
And there better be an explanation if that turns out not to be true.

May I offer a potential explanation?: If Trump has offended large numbers of voters, like women and Hispanics, to have effectively disqualified himself from winning the general election in the Fall. The RNC is an inclusive body. Actively and openly offending key constituents of its membership might be a cause for disqualification.

Another explanation is if he is polling losing to Hillary by double digits for the Fall. Which he has been. Consistently. California's riots at Trump's rally only underscores the lack of support he's going to get facing off with Hillary there and elsewhere. I would say the most excellent explanation of all is "this candidate has offended so much of the base that it would be impossible for him to carry our party to a win this Fall." To nominate him would be one and the same as a June concession speech by the GOP. We might not bother at all with the expense of the Fall election. Just nominate Trump and concede the election all at the same RNC convention.

Saves time. Saves money.

 

[NightFox]

As far as I know, it's none of the above, the RNC nominating process doesn't account for the results of hypothetical match-ups with candidates from other parties. Beyond that the RNC isn't "legally bound" to nominate anybody although I would think that they'd be subject to civil action if they failed to follow their own rules (which are changeable) during the nomination process.

"Hypothetical match-ups". You mean polling, right? The stuff all strategists rely on to make a winning game plan.. "Ignore the facts, just wing it." That's your "GOP win strategy"?

Personally I don't give a fuck whether the GOP wins, loses, ties or commits mass suicide. You asked a question and I gave you an answer based on the existing RNC rules and they don't take hypothetical match-ups into account for nominations (and yes hypothetical match-ups are based on polling).

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Does the RNC Have a Legal Obligation to Nominate a Winning Fall Candidate?

No

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

The one with the most delegates.

The one with 1237 and if it falls short of that then the one the Delegates want...

I agree...The candidate needs the 1237 otherwise what is the point of all the primaries.
I don't agree with the notion that if Trump is 100-200 shy that the nomination should just be given to
him because he got close enough.

If Trumps team can negotiate with delegates before the convention then that's it.
But he needs the 1237.

Now if the rules are changed for this convention well that's something else I guess.
But all I have been hearing for months is that the candidate needs the 1237.
And there better be an explanation if that turns out not to be true.

It would be suicide if they change the rules now.

The reality is Trump is going to get the 1237 he need to clinch the nomination and once he does the GOP has two choices and that is embrace Trump or embrace a third party candidate instead and pull the resources from Trump.

I believe the GOP thought just like I did that Trump was some kind of Joke but the Joke has made it impossible for them to get rid of him without destroying the party.

1237 is the mark and the RNC can change the rules and throw it to the floor for a vote but it would be suicide and it will not only mean this election but also 2018, 2020 and most likely 2022 elections will be gone.

If they do not want Trump then let him win the nomination and back someone like Gary Johnson on the Libertarian party and put resources into his run so that it will draw votes away from Trump.

It will be the lesser of two evils and might save the Senate and House come this November...